Inclusive Design at bus stops with cycle tracks, Appendices 2-5

Key document information

This is a web page version of a report from Living Streets, which is also published as a pdf document. This version has been adapted to focus on providing accessibility for people who want to enlarge the text or to use a screen reader.

The key information below is taken from the document cover pages:

Document title: Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendices 2-5
Document date & version: March 2024, Version 1.5
Publishing organisation: Living Streets
Author/research lead: Robert Weetman

Appendix 2: Bus stop design classification

The classification of design options – for situations where a cycle track continues past a bus stop – is clearer if it is understood that the ‘bus stop bypass’ versus ‘bus stop boarder’ classification is over simple.

The biggest issue is that the term ‘boarder’ is confusing and is used to refer to quite different designs. A secondary issue is that current classifications tend not to describe ‘hybrid’ designs.

This appendix provides additional ideas about classifying the different possible designs.

NB: This appendix is provided only to support ideas about classification, and does not provide any guidance on the value (or lack of value) of the different options.

Key dimensions

This table lists some of the key dimensions which can be combined to create different bus stop designs. The options marked with an asterisk in this table are generally associated with designs known as a ‘bus stop bypass’.

Table 1: Key design dimensions

	Option 1	Option 1 + option 2 hybrid	Option 2
Position of cycle track?	Cyclists pass between the bus stop and the main pavement *	Cyclists pass between different elements of the bus stop and related street furniture	Cyclists pass between the bus stop and the carriageway
Waiting area position?	Bus passengers wait on an island of pavement *	Bus passengers sometimes wait on the main pavement and sometimes on an island	Bus passengers wait on the main pavement
Boarding /alighting position?	Bus passengers alight onto an island of pavement*	Bus passengers alight onto a small area which isn’t part of the cycle track but which isn’t really a recognisable island of pavement area	Bus passengers alight onto the cycle track
Is island only for bus stop?	The island of pavement is distinctly defined, clearly existing to serve the bus stop*	There is a multi-use area which is neither part of the main pavement, nor a larger island of pavement, of the bus stop waiting area is a part	The island of pavement is much larger, continuing outside the area of the bus stop
How big is the island?	There is no island of any kind (even a painted area) between track and carriageway.	There is a small area between cycle track and carriageway, not large or significant enough for people to wait on it.	The island is big and significant enough several to wait on it comfortably.
Single or multiple bus stops?	The island of pavement serves one distinct bus stop *	There is an area which has a design much like the pavement, joining separate bus stop islands, but which isn’t really wide enough to be walked along	The island of pavement stretches over a longer area, and it serves more than one bus stop
Does main footway continue?	Passing pedestrians stay on the main pavement area when passing the stop *	There is only a narrow area of ‘main’ pavement, so many passing pedestrians walk along the bus stop island area (or on the track)	It is intended that all pedestrians cross the cycle track to pass the bus stop area
One or two way cycle track?	The cycle track is one-way	The cycle track is marked as one-way, but many people use it in the wrong direction	The cycle track is two-way
Can other vehicles pass behind the stop?	The bus stop island is separated from the main pavement by a cycle track	The bus stop island is separated from the main pavement by an access used almost entirely for cycling, but which can occasionally carry a vehicle	The bus stop island is separated from the main pavement area by a vehicle access
Who crosses what?	Pedestrians cross an area, whether or not marked with a crossing, which is clearly part of a cycle track *	Cyclists and pedestrians cross an area which feels to be shared equally between pedestrian and cyclist uses	Cyclists cross or pass through an area, whether or not marked with a crossing point, which is clearly intended mostly for pedestrian use
Does the cycle track maintain its significance?	The cycle track continues through the bus stop area in an obvious way, with boundaries which are obvious*	Something reminiscent of the cycle track continues through the bus stop area, but in a diminished form, or with boundaries which are unobvious	The cycle track stops and starts for the bus stop, meaning cyclists use an area which feels to be ordinary pavement
Is the rest of the cycle track obvious?	There is generally an obvious cycle track, before and after the bus stop area	The cycle track, before and after the bus stop area, has indistinct separation from the pavement	Cyclists are allowed to cycle on the ordinary pavement, before and after the bus stop area

Proposed key types

As discussed in the main report, we propose that in future, there are seen to be four key design types, which are:

Bus stop bypass (or floating bus stop / bypass bus stop)
Shared platform boarder
Continued kerbside track
Broken cycle track

Simplified sketches of these reference types are provided in Figure 1.
NB: Inclusion of these options is only to assist in naming/classification issues.

Figure 1: Key reference design types

1) Bus stop bypass

Drawing of a bus stop bypass arrangement (with a long island)

2) Broken cycle track (shared pavement)

Drawing of a broken cycle track arrangement.

3) Continued kerbside track design

Drawing of a continued kerbside track arrangement

4) Shared platform boarder design

Drawing of a shared platform border arrangement.

Examples from Google Streetview

Table 2 provides links to a variety of real-world designs, demonstrating how much these can vary – and the inadequacy of a simple ‘bypass’/’boarder’/’shared’ classification scheme.

The titles in the ‘type’ and ‘sub-type’ columns are intended informally (i.e. not to imply a formal classification scheme).

Bold entries in the ‘type’ column indicate examples of the key reference design types (as in Figure 1). Other options can be seen as variations or hybrids of these.

Table 2: Google Streetview image links

Type	Sub-type	Distinguishing detail	Ref	Streetview link
Bypass	Simple bypass	Uni-directional Kerbed Straight track	BS-129	https://goo.gl/maps/ELiHQC2RmxFajCUM7
Bypass	Simple bypass	Uni-directional Kerbed Bendy track	BS-44	https://goo.gl/maps/oJT6QfvD8FjZHHNB8
Bypass	Simple bypass	Bi-directional Kerbed Straight track	BS-86	https://goo.gl/maps/1X5Jhd5FHv7CeCjd9
Bypass	Extended bypass	Bi-directional Straight track Multiple uses of island	BS-139	https://goo.gl/maps/TjMZnuKgbZoevFPDA
Bypass	Double-stop	Uni-directional Straight track Multiple stops	BS-182	https://goo.gl/maps/BhPB6j7GMKjEj2n16
Bypass	Pedestrians all use island	Uni-directional All pedestrians use island Island bypassed by vehicle access	BS-245	https://goo.gl/maps/7y2MB7VYddHNCtKZ6
Bypass-shared hybrid		Track loses significance but continues through stop	BS-225	https://goo.gl/maps/fvhKQubx54cjJ77y8
Bypass	Separate pavement	Pavement and cycle track not adjacent	BS-15	https://goo.gl/maps/wQUqaQJZh58R4xo96
Bypass-shared hybrid		Shared track/pavement area between pavement and island		https://goo.gl/maps/wQUqaQJZh58R4xo96
Vehicle-bypass	Cycle /vehicle bypass	Space behind bypass provided for cycling but also vehicles	BS-404	https://goo.gl/maps/MYV3J6xdQNz5uVmf8
Vehicle-bypass	Vehicle bypass	Vehicle access behind stop	BS-509	https://goo.gl/maps/81gVGPBB6kU1SCb18
Boarder-bypass hybrid	Bus infra off island	Uni-directional Island too tiny to be an island	BS-198	https://goo.gl/maps/c45hqGZLdEuahiD18
Boarder-bypass hybrid	Bus infra off island	Uni-directional Very narrow island	BS-111	https://goo.gl/maps/fxcy6vhzCjYaqTMf7
Boarder-bypass hybrid	Bus infra off island	Bi-directional Narrow island	BS-143	https://goo.gl/maps/P2hPEAnxSqiMN2C66
Boarder-bypass hybrid	Bus infra off island	Uni-directional Wider island	BS-530	https://goo.gl/maps/bR5GavYdMkYfRPKcA
Boarder-bypass hybrid	Bus infra split	Uni-directional Wider island Some bus infrastructure off the island	BS-112	https://goo.gl/maps/7mtQCDV5vSrRqXcNA
Boarder-bypass-shared hybrid		Island insignificant Bus stop infrastructure insignificant Track insignificant through stop	BS-150	https://goo.gl/maps/nByHn7vKuxG8t6dw5
Continued kerbside track	Simple	Simple continuation of cycle track Uni-directional	BS-460	https://goo.gl/maps/reE1rPAJktnRtoWP9
Continued kerbside track	Simple	Simple continuation of cycle track Bi-directional Pavement insignificant No kerbs	BS-490	https://goo.gl/maps/yX9BVvN3Pnt8PQDa7
Continued kerbside track-broken cycle track hybrid		Cycle track continues but is marked as shared area	BS-448	https://goo.gl/maps/jhYMG2vJFm4Aqcik8
Continued kerbside track-broken cycle track hybrid		Cycle track -pavement distinction insignificant throughout	BS-476	https://goo.gl/maps/ozzcRw6i38DNVn3T6
Shared platform boarder	Simple	Cyclists cross a pedestrian-focused platform Platform area distinct from pavement	BS-386	https://goo.gl/maps/rF99TgLEmszEcwuW9
Shared platform-continuation of cycle track hybrid		Cyclists travel along a longer shared platform	BS-25	https://goo.gl/maps/vrFYB9Q8vS9EodWG8
Shared platform - shared area hybrid		Cyclists cross raised platform which appears as if ordinary pavement	BS-309	https://goo.gl/maps/peSN9n6vWmm825s58
Shared platform boarder	Simple	Cycle track crosses an obvious raised platform Pedestrians cross track on raised platform	BS-622	https://goo.gl/maps/13ce8TKkC25EfoQr9
Broken cycle track	Simple	Cycle track does not continue in any form Cyclists allowed to use ordinary pavement	BS-313	https://goo.gl/maps/KbuEfqgwmXebP9Ct7
Other	Bus mounts track	Bus mounts cycle track (physically almost a cycle lane)	BS-287	https://goo.gl/maps/9srHRDp511mbU7ad9
Other	Two-way cycling within bus layby	Track runs into bus layby Includes cycling against traffic flow	BS-338	https://goo.gl/maps/JXSJmjhY2yVbHHK59

Appendix 3: Suggested design principles

For the convenience of designers, the following list summarises some of the key suggestions made in the main report. The interpretation of these points should be on the basis of the text in the main report (which makes clear which points are more speculative and which are more firmly evidenced).

Overall context

Alternatives to continuing a cycle track past a bus stop should be chosen if possible.
There should be an acknowledgement that blind and partially sighted people may be disadvantaged by the need to cross a cycle track to access a bus.
A key means to reduce any excluding effects is to significantly increase the overall accessibility of streets in the wider area.
Problems for pedestrians increase according to the level of cycling on the cycle track.
Problems for pedestrians increase as the environment cyclists are encountering becomes more complex, with the level of pedestrian use affecting this.
As a rule of thumb, it is helpful to consider three situations as different from one another, which are those with quiet-simple, moderately-busy-complex, and busy-complex environments.

Features adding to complexity

The following add to the complexity of a situation:

Higher numbers of cyclists, a level of cycling when strangers find themselves in groups, larger flows of cyclists
Two-way cycling
The presence of groups of pedestrians, flows of pedestrians
Limits to space so that pedestrians are close to the cycle track, or so they are likely to stand or walk on the cycle track
A larger number of buses, stopping more frequently, more than one bus stopping at a time
Buses sitting at a stop for a prolonged period
Larger numbers of people alighting from buses, groups alighting from buses
Pedestrians queuing (e.g. for a cash machine, shop, taxis, or for the bus), crossing the carriageway, entering and exiting shops, standing chatting in groups
Breaks in a cycle track in which cyclists are at risk from vehicles
Obstructions and imperfections in surface – including drain covers, slippery metal features, kerbs at pedal height, kerbs with a vertical upstand, steep ramps
Sharp bends in the cycle track (particularly if the track is narrow and if kerbs are high)
Handlebar height (or higher) obstructions close beside the cycle track, even if these aren’t actual collision risks. Bollards in the cycle track.

Overall design principles

Cycle tracks should be built so that it is very clear that they are separate from the footway.
This distinction between track and footway should be made obvious for blind and partially sighted people, and more obvious for all other pedestrians, with a drop in level to the track, and the use of kerbs of sufficient height (but which are reliably below pedal height). For the same reason, cycle tracks should be of a consistent colour (and tone – i.e. “light reflectance value”) and this should have a clear contrast with the footway.
Kerbs should be of a “forgiving” design (low enough so as not to risk a pedal strike, with an angled rather than a vertical face). They should be high enough to be detectable by blind and partially sighted pedestrians using a long cane, and with their feet.
For the reasons above it is likely to be a mistake to try to influence behaviours by introducing changes in surface colour on the cycle track (the exception being zebra crossing markings).

Basic crossing points

Identifiable kerb-free crossing points of the cycle track should be provided, either by raising the track to footway level or by dropped kerbs (from footway to cycle track level). For cycle tracks of a decent width, with forgiving kerbs, there may be little practical difference between these arrangements (as far as the user is concerned).
Tactile paving should be provided (in a standard arrangements) to highlight such points. It should be recognised that some pedestrians will want to avoid walking/wheeling over these.
Zebra crossing markings might be used to highlight the overall presence of the bus stop, and any key crossing points. Crossings with very few stripes, and/or short stripes may not be recognised as formal zebra crossings by many members of the public. Zebra crossings (alone) are unlikely to lead to high levels of priority being provided for crossing pedestrians.
Any zebra crossings should be located at places where most pedestrians are likely to cross, so that they are used rather than ignored.

Other accessibility issues

Accessibility is improved by increasing the space available at the bus stop, particularly when there are likely to be larger groups of passengers waiting for buses, and/or alighting from them.
Crowded environments can cause challenges for disabled pedestrians alighting from a bus. These can be reduced if it is possible for people to leave the bus stop area by more than one route (avoiding the crowd rather than being forced to pass through it).
Excessive crossfall on a bus stop island, which can be introduced because of the combination of high kerbs at the carriageway, and lowered kerbs at the cycle track, should be avoided. It may help to align raised crossings of the cycle track, with the location that bus access ramps are deployed.

Simplicity and safety on the cycle track

The environment around a cycle track can be complex, and an overall objective is to simplify this, ensuring that cyclists are free to look ahead, anticipating the behaviours of any pedestrian likely to cross the track. In order to achieve this:

It is important that the presence of a bus stop is obvious to cyclists.
In a more complex environment crossing pedestrians (or pedestrians wanting to cross) should be made as obvious as possible, to distinguish them from pedestrians who are not doing so.
Small sections of railing and the orientation of the bus shelter might be used to clearly separate waiting passengers from a cycle track, and to separate crossing pedestrians from any crowd at the stop
There should be sufficient width on cycle tracks, so that the attention of cyclists is not on avoiding collision with other cyclists (and decreases in width at the bus stop should not introduce the risk of such collisions).
Kerbs at the edges of the cycle track should be consistently and reliably lower than pedal height (i.e. not only at the bus stop), and of a ‘forgiving’ design (i.e. with an angled rather then vertical face).
Distracting bends in the cycle track should be avoided close to the bus stop area.
With the exception of simple zebra markings, paint markings on cycle tracks should be minimised.
Triangular markings highlighting the presence of ramps should only be used for ramps that are steep and high enough to cause cyclists an unexpected or unobvious hazard, not at less significant ramps.
Pedestrians about to cross the track must not be hidden behind obstacles and must not have their visibility of oncoming cyclists obstructed. Pedestrians might be prevented from crossing at places where they are particularly difficult to see (assuming that a diversion of a few metres makes them more visible).

Regulating speeds

If it is desired to include features to slow more extreme speeds – such as might arise on a downhill cycle track or with the use of illegally modified e-bikes – then cyclists should finish their negotiation of such features before they need to begin to pay attention to anticipating any potential crossing pedestrians.
Such features should not exclude (or cause pain or discomfort to) users of alternative designs of cycle, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, and other wheeled mobility aids.
Any ‘SLOW’ markings should be used in a manner consistent with its official meaning, and with how this marking is used on a typical carriageway. The official meaning is “Vehicular traffic should proceed with caution because of potential danger ahead”. The marking typically advises of danger to the person driving where this danger is unobvious. It could be used to warn cyclists of the risks associated with negotiating a feature as described in the point above.
Any signage to highlight the presence of a zebra crossing should be with a sign according to ‘Diagram 544’ in TSRGD (a warning triangle showing a crossing pedestrian).

Solutions for making it easier to cross the track

The main report recommends that a set of enhancements – for making it easy for blind and partially sighted pedestrians to cross the cycle track – are researched.

Appendix 4: A cycle track without bypasses

This appendix provides a sequence of 30 images, taken from a helmet-mounted camera, showing a two-minute journey on a cycle track which has gaps at bus stops. There is only “light segregation” from the carriageway, but the experience would be similar on a fully segregated track in which there were similar gaps.

A car is parked in the gap at the first bus stop. At the second the cyclist prepares to pass two buses, but the front one pulls away. At the third the cyclist checks to prepare to pass the front bus, finding the bus behind is pulling in close behind them

00:00 in track